1. Did Congress intend to preclude as successive under the AEDPA a state prisoner habeas claim that he is held unconstitutionally upon conviction and sentence by a court that lacked jurisdiction to both indict and convict him, where that claim is based upon an order that was birth from the State court after the conclusion of the earlier habeas proceeding and that specifically declared it, the State court, did not have jurisdiction to indict nor convict the petitioner for the crimes for which petitioner was convicted and sits imprisoned for the rest of his life a sentence tantamount to the death penalty?

2. Did Congress intend for the federal court to bar a state prisoner's habeas claim as successive where that habeas claim is based on an order by the State court after the conclusion of the earlier habeas proceeding now declaring that the state court lacked jurisdiction to indict and convict?

3. Does an order from the State court which declares the State court lacked jurisdiction to indict and convict petitioner, and which was birthed after the conclusion of the State prisoner's earlier federal habeas proceeding, constitute new conclusive evidence that the State court lacked jurisdiction to indict and convict State prisoner to warrant federal writ of habeas corpus?

4. Did Congress intend for the AEDPA to bar, as successive, or time-barred, federal habeas corpus relief to a State prisoner who claims,after the State court admits that it lacked jurisdiction to both indict and convict petitioner for the crimes for which he is currently in custody, that the he is unconstitutionally in custody by a judgment from a court that lacked jurisdiction?

Did Congress intend to preclude as successive under the AEDPA a state prisoner habeas claim that he is held unconstitutionally upon conviction and sentence by a court that lacked jurisdiction to both indict and convict him?